We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results:1-10 of 20

Appeal of PTO Validity Decision Dismissed in Light of Patent Owner's Unilateral Covenant Not to Sue the Appellant
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • February 28 2017

Adverse decisions by the U.S. Patent Office may not be appealed to a federal court unless the appellant meets constitutional standing requirements by


If an inventor offers a not-yet-developed product for sale, the on-sale-bar clock starts ticking when the product is fully conceived
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • October 31 2011

Inventors can run afoul of the Patent Act and forfeit patent protection by offering their invention for sale more than one year before filing a patent application.


Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group, Inc
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • April 26 2011

The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB's dismissal of Citigroup's opposition to the registration of CAPITAL CITY BANK marks based on a likelihood of confusion with Opposer's CITIBANK marks.


Federal Circuit affirms finding of no likelihood of confusion between Citibank marks and Capital City Bank marks
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • April 21 2011

In Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group, Inc., No. 10-1369 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2011), the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s dismissal of Citigroup Inc.’s (“Citigroup”) opposition to registration of Capital City Bank Group, Inc.’s (“CCB”) CAPITAL CITY BANK marks based on a likelihood of confusion with Citigroup’s CITIBANK marks.


Reproducing an invention in the United States does not constitute inventorship under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(2)
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • November 22 2010

In Solvay S.A. v. Honeywell International, Inc., No. 09-1161 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2010), the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in ruling that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,730,817 (“the ’817 patent”) were invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(2).


Stayart v. Yahoo! Inc., 2010 WL 3785147 (7th Cir. Sept. 30, 2010)
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • October 29 2010

Plaintiff, an animal-rights activist, searched for her name on defendants' Internet search engines and discovered that her name was listed in search results linked to sexual-dysfunction drugs and pornographic websites.


Super-Krete Int’l, Inc. v. Sadleir, 2010 WL 1688533 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2010)
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • June 30 2010

Plaintiff sued defendants, a direct competitor in the concreteresurfacing business and its president, for trademark infringement, dilution, and cybersquatting based on defendants' registration and use of a domain name consisting of plaintiff's trademark to direct Internet users to defendants' own website marketing competing products.


Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. QIP Holders LLC
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • March 31 2010

Subway brought false-advertising claims based on a series of commercials run by Quiznos, which claimed that Quiznos sandwiches had double the amount of meat of Subway sandwiches.


Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group, Inc
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • March 31 2010

Based on Opposer's prior use and registration of its CITIBANK marks for financial services, Opposer opposed registration of Applicant's CAPITAL CITY BANK marks for financial services on the grounds of likelihood of confusion and dilution.


JA Apparel Corp. v. Abboud
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • February 26 2010

In its initial decision in this long-running legal battle surrounding the "Joseph Abboud" name, the Southern District of New York found in favor of plaintiff who had purchased defendant's trademarks.